“We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By continuing to use the website, you consent to our use of cookies.” Close
One of the most widely relied upon protections available to executors and trustees is the right of indemnity out of the estate or trust fund for liabilities properly incurred in the course of administration. In practice, this principle often provides reassurance to personal representatives faced with difficult decisions or contentious litigation.
Proprietary estoppel typically plays a role in domestic contexts in which formalities are not at the forefront of the parties’ minds. It provides a remedy in situations where the parties fall short of a formal enforceable contract, but equity nevertheless holds parties to their promises in order to prevent unconscionability.
Only logged in subscribers have access to the PDF issue library. Log in to continue or subscribe now
One of the most basic Inheritance Tax mitigation strategies is to make a Potentially Exempt Transfer and to survive for seven years. It is generally well understood that if there is a reservation of benefit, the seven-year survival period will not start running until the reservation of benefit is removed.
Court of Protection applications for statutory wills, lifetime gifts, and the appointment and removal of attorneys and deputies are likely to involve consideration of P’s dispositive and testamentary wishes, family relationships and dynamics, capacity, and susceptibility to influence.
This article considers two recent judgments given after the taking of trust accounts. The first is Master Marsh’s decision in Hubbard v Hubbard [2025] EWHC 855 (Ch). The second, Master McQuail’s judgment in Walker v Somboonsarn [2025] EWHC 1643 (Ch). These judgments offer rare guidance into the practice on the taking of an account.
Contentious probate practitioners are familiar with the difficult discussions with disappointed, would-be beneficiaries (“DB”) in which the stated reasons for DB’s exclusion given by the testator (“T”) to the drafting solicitor are dissected. Typically, these explanations might include things the DB has apparently done (disparaged T, sponged off T, stolen from T), not done (provided care, visited T sufficiently) or received from T during their lifetime (enough, more than others) which the DB asserts are demonstrably false.
There are certain areas of the law in which practitioners invariably confront limitation periods and other deadlines. One of these is litigation under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, with its strict statutory deadline for the issue of a claim. Probate claims, however, do not tend to attract similar concerns, given the lack of statutory limitation period and the existence of the mechanism allowing a person to enter a caveat against an estate.
Relations between beneficiaries and trustees can become strained. Beneficiaries may want more information about the administration of the trust or regarding the trustees’ decision-making. There may be concerns about conflicts of interest or hostility on the part of the trustees, or evidence of positive misconduct. As a result, practitioners are often asked whether proceedings should be brought to remove or replace trustees, or are asked to advise trustees on their positions in response to intimated or issued removal claims.
For those whose pulse quickens at the mention of fiduciary doctrine, 2025 has been a year of bountiful riches, with the Supreme Court handing down no fewer than three decisions in the field. In March, came Rukhadze and Others v Recovery Partners GP Ltd and Another [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 329 in which the court was required to fend off attacks on equity’s hallowed “no-profit rule” from common law barbarian invaders.
The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Lorenz v Caruana and Others [2025] EWCA Civ 606 offers an opportunity to discuss secret trusts in the particular context of attempted tax avoidance using the spousal exemption for Inheritance Tax.
Two recent High Court judgments involving family farms, Scott v Estate of Richard Norman Scott [2025] EWHC 2796 (Ch) and Maile v Maile [2025] EWHC 2494 (Ch), have illustrated the difficulties faced by claimants trying to establish a claim in proprietary estoppel.
Applications for the detailed assessment of costs by beneficiaries have been cast in the spotlight following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Kenig v Thomson Snell & Passmore LLP [2024] EWCA Civ 15. Tucker v Howe [2026] EWHC 208 (SCC) is a new addition to the post-Kenig landscape. The claimants challenged a bill of £147,436.33 and, after nine days of court time, achieved a reduction of less than £18,000. They were then ordered to pay, out of their own pockets, the costs of the assessment on an indemnity basis, assessed at £132,400 plus VAT.
Several recent decisions have considered the potential effect of partnership agreements on proprietary estoppel claims made in the context of family farming partnerships. This article seeks to summarise those decisions and briefly consider whether they establish any principles of general application.
Canarapen v Gauchenot [2025] EWHC 2728 (Ch) concerns a deed of variation that gifted a share in a property. The party making the gift under the deed later regretted their decision and sought to revoke it. The decision examines both the formal and substantive requirements for a deed to be valid.
The Court of Appeal’s decision in National Iranian Oil Company and Another v Crescent Gas Corporation Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1211 raises important considerations on the scope of section 53(1)(b) LPA and the consequences of non-compliance in the context of insolvency proceedings.
Lloyd’s is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd’s Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd’s.